Back
Slams Railways for Delaying of Low-Paid
The on Tuesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the for forcing low-paid to litigate for decades to secure their employment rights. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed two filed by the challenging a order of the (CAT) that directed the of these workers. The Court directed compliance within four weeks and warned of revived if the Railways failed to act.
The case concerns commission-based vendors and bearers employed by the , who had been seeking of their services since the 1970s. The Bench expressed “” that drawing “” had been compelled to litigate for decades despite repeated directions from the . “It is time that Courts protected the interests of the weaker sections of the society and persons drawing , so as to ensure that the of our democracy – which is a preambular goal – remains intact,” the Court observed.
Background: A Long History of Unfulfilled Promises
The dispute traces back to a circular dated , which envisaged registering based on length of service and progressively absorbing them against regular vacancies. Despite this policy, the Railways failed to implement it, leading to litigation that reached the . In and again in , the Apex Court issued directions for and payment of benefits to similarly placed workers. The order specifically mandated that until , workers should be paid the minimum of the revised pay scale along with applicable allowances.
In , the issued another circular directing of all with complete relaxation of educational qualifications. Yet, the respondent workers were forced to approach the CAT again in . The Tribunal allowed their applications, ordering within 90 days, payment of minimum pay scale and allowances from , and imposing costs of ₹1 lakh on the Railways. The challenged this order before the High Court.
Court’s Reasoning: No Room for Screening or Delay
The High Court firmly rejected the Railways’ contention that only those found eligible through a could be regularised. The Bench held that the 1976 circular and the ’s orders left no doubt that all commission bearers and vendors in service at the time of those judgments were entitled to . “It is not disputed, before us, that all the respondents would fall within this category,” the Court noted, adding that there was no question of the Railways subsequently resorting to a to eliminate any of them.
The Court also found it “” that the Railways failed to substantiate its claim that several workers had already been absorbed as . During proceedings, the Court had directed the Railways to file an affidavit detailing benefits paid to regular employees versus the respondents, including retiral benefits. Instead, the Railways filed an additional affidavit stating that unregularised commission vendors were not entitled to retirement benefits available to regular employees. The Bench observed: “One would expect the Railways to display both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.”
Given this lack of substantiation, the Court said it was inclined to accept the respondents’ assertion that none of them had been regularised despite repeated judicial orders. “We find no case, whatsoever, to interfere with the of the Tribunal,” the Bench concluded.
Costs and Contempt: A Lenient Approach
The High Court also addressed the ₹1 lakh costs imposed by the CAT. While noting that the Tribunal had “erred on the side of ,” the Court stated that it would have been inclined to enhance the costs but hesitatingly refrained from doing so. The Bench directed compliance with the entire Tribunal order, including payment of costs, within four weeks. It further ordered that if the Railways failed to comply, the CAT should revive —which had been kept on hold during the pendency of the —and take them to their logical conclusion.
Legal Implications: Protecting the Weakest in Public Employment
This judgment reinforces the principle that public sector employers cannot indefinitely delay the of low-paid workers who have rendered long and continuous service. The High Court’s reliance on the “” of the Constitution’s Preamble signals that courts will actively intervene to protect vulnerable sections from administrative inertia. The decision also underscores the importance of before judicial forums; the Railways’ failure to provide evidence of undermined its own case.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights the of circulars and directions on . The Court’s refusal to allow a after decades of inaction sets a that employers cannot introduce new eligibility criteria to exclude workers who were covered by earlier policies. Additionally, the threat of serves as a powerful tool to enforce compliance with tribunal orders.
Impact on the Railways and Similar Workforces
The order directly affects dozens of on the , but its ripple effects may extend to other zonal railways that have similar categories of workers. The judgment reminds all public sector undertakings that protracted litigation against low-paid workers will not be tolerated, and that courts are prepared to impose costs and monitor compliance. The Railways must now act swiftly to regularise the respondents and ensure that other similarly situated employees are not forced to litigate.
The case also raises broader questions about the treatment of contract and commission-based workers in government departments. The ’s strong language—characterising the situation as “” and “”—may encourage other low-paid workers to approach tribunals for their rights.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in is a significant victory for low-paid who have waited decades for justice. By upholding the CAT’s order and directing swift compliance, the Court has reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to protecting weaker sections. As the four-week deadline looms, the Railways must now honour its long-standing promises or face . The judgment stands as a reminder that the justice system will not allow administrative delays to defeat the legitimate entitlements of the most vulnerable workers.
